as bad as it sounds, shouldnt it be up to the churches to decide whether they want to marry someone or not?

I think otherwise, it just opens a can of worms -- the church would be, well, if you are forcing us to marry someone against our beliefs, then we should also force our beliefs on something you don't agree (ie, euthanasia, abortion, et al)

not familiar with the UK system, but I'm saying this based on what goes here in the US (not that it stops the american churches from trying to impose their views on the general population)...

^aye exactly, the discussion above was about it still being unlawful in the UK because if it wasn't the CoE would be forced to wed same sex couples (which they wouldn't was the result).

If you are religious you believe in something divine (trying to put it siply, so bear with me) - if that divine says "you cannot marry" it shouldn't come as a surprise to you taht believe in that divine that you should not be married.

Now intepretation of religious texts is best left to religious institutions themselves, and out of the hands of lawmakers. Lawmakers have a responsibility to make an effort to ensure that laws do not infringe on the rights of the religious institutions.

Article 9, section 2 of the ECHR is particularly interesting there, in that it becomes a human rights violation if lawmakes impose restrictions on the practices of a religious instituion unless it can be demonstrated that they are necessary in a democratic society - so in essence, if I were to gather a group of likeminded individuals in a religious institution, where same sex marriage was endorsed, it would be a human righst violation to restrict our right to perform such marriages.

The DHR is not nearly as clear about it, but is also designed to span more than the primarily christian based countries of europe - still, it says that you have a human right in practise and observance, so the same case could be made - I don't know if the US is actually a signatroy to the DHR (it honestly wouldn't suprise me if they weren't, looking at the way the equal protection for people with disabilities convention was handled), but if they are, a human righst argument could be made against DoMA - all it take sis finding 1 religious institution that endorses same sex marriage based on a non-silly interpretation of religious dogma for said religion.

I must say the whole CofE (and Church of Wales btw, but it gets a bit of a mouthful, so just excuse my omission henceforth) exclusion seems bizarre to me. I can only imagine it has something to do with the whole established church, inclusion in the government thing. There are other rules that apply differently for CofE and everyone else, notably foreign marriages. I needed to get forms signed by the home office etc... to get married in a Catholic church (I wasnt naturalized at the time) but if we had been so inclined we could have done it in a CofE church with no red tape.

I just find it weird that it seems the argument for excluding CofE seems to be something to do with Europe and human rights, but I would have thought that since they have allowed other groups to do it, you'd have MORE recourse to claim a Human rights violation for the exclusion.

Nooska wrote:Article 9, section 2 of the ECHR is particularly interesting there, in that it becomes a human rights violation if lawmakes impose restrictions on the practices of a religious instituion unless it can be demonstrated that they are necessary in a democratic society - so in essence, if I were to gather a group of likeminded individuals in a religious institution, where same sex marriage was endorsed, it would be a human righst violation to restrict our right to perform such marriages.

Yes, it would be a human rights violation, but I don't think that means what you are implying. I'm pretty sure the government would not stop you from doing that, however, that does not mean that the government must recognize those marriages legally. That is an entirely different issue.

Churches in states that don't allow gay marriage here, still marry gay people. The government can not stop that without violating the constitution. However, that marriage only has any meaning within the context of that church, it has no legal standing. Just because the government can't restrict your religious actions (unless necessary to preserve a democratic society), doesn't make your actions law.

^thats true, though it would make an interesting case. What you are saying (and being correct about) is that the government can just let you perfor the marriages, iwthout any civil standing to follow.

That the CoE can perform marriages without red tape isn't so different from many other couontries. In several countries recognized religious entities can perform both the religious and the secular/civil union at the same time - in dnemark fonr instants, the "peoples church", the catholic church, the mosaic beleif society (jewish church), the primary asatru association as well as several islamic mosques can perform a civil wedding at the same time as the religious ritual (ie, one go). I know some countries have this completely seperated, but that doesn't make the church a "part of the state" they have just been given permission to perform certain works that the state would usually do.

Now on that, the danish peoples church is the sole registrar of births and names - that riles some feathers (having to register your children with the church, despite ones own religious beliefs)

I'm sympathetic to the Boy Scouts. While they may want to do the right thing, they are going to get a lot of grief from homophobes who will use their children to advance their agenda.

They won't care if their boy is a couple of badges away from Eagle scout if a gay kid joins the troup. They'll have images of gang rapes out in the woods and yank their kid out so fast heads will spin. Even worse if it's an adult member.

Eventually there will be some kind of incident involving a gay person, either as perpetrator, victim, or frame-job, and it'll make headlines all over.

At the same time, they are being hammered for their stance on gay members.

Why is it that these homophobic people get away with equating "being gay" to "jumping anything that moves"? Yes, there are gay abusers/molesters out there - but the 2 are not related - by that count, with the amount of heterosexual abusers/molesters out there, they should want gay scoutleaders all around *sigh*.

Okay, as I said somewhere else, a phobia is by definition not rational - but still..

Koatanga wrote:I'm sympathetic to the Boy Scouts. While they may want to do the right thing, they are going to get a lot of grief from homophobes who will use their children to advance their agenda.

My sympathy went right out the window for them when it was revealed that they have been keeping a "secret list" and "covering up" for Scout Masters who did terrible terrible things to children for years. My sympathy for them is even less than what I might have at this point for the Catholic Church.

They won't care if their boy is a couple of badges away from Eagle scout if a gay kid joins the troup. They'll have images of gang rapes out in the woods and yank their kid out so fast heads will spin. Even worse if it's an adult member.

If they don't have the ability to respect another human being with a different lifestyle than their own, they really are violating the Boy Scout Law.

Shoju wrote:Dad's Plausible Deniability went out the window in 2011 and 2012. And if Homophobic dad is afraid of "catching gay" there's no cure for his stupidity.

If he's homophobic, the stupidity is implied. I'm merely pointing out the fact that your average nominally Christian American dad is not going to want to send his son to camp with an openly gay troop leader.

I don't think the average American, or person in general, understands that while pedophiles may be attracted to youths of the same sex, they are pedophiles, not homosexuals. Homosexuals are no more interested in kids of the same sex than heterosexuals are in kids of the opposite sex.

For the average, the math is simply "don't put people who are sexually attracted to males alone in the woods with with male children".

Koatanga wrote:For the average, the math is simply "don't put people who are sexually attracted to males alone in the woods with with male children".

They just need their programming tweaked a little... it should be "don't put people who are sexually attracted to CHILDREN alone in the woods with children."

And yes, I'm sure YOU know that... but I wish there was an easy way to allow people to see their own stupidity.

Sadly, when people hear about a man molesting a young boy, they assume the man is gay, because he went after someone of the same sex. They don't understand it's another category of sexuality altogether.

Take your classic priest-and-altar-boy story that most people have heard about. The priest messes around with another male but doesn't date women. Conclusion: He's gay.